SMRT

Quote:A small correction, actually 2 operators. SMRT and SBST.

Good life? IMO, SMRT is dealing with more demanding commuters (customers) compare with Tokyo.

They both the same thing lah under LTA. If you want to compare is still less competition.

Tokyo with 12 million population has 13 operators that's 1.2 for every 1 million population.

So our 5.1 million should be getting 5.1 x 1.2 = 6.12 operators that's 3 times less competition that they are facing.

3 times less competition is not good life?

According to the article SMRT carried 70 passengers per km 60 more than tokyo.

So implying that train operators in tokyo are carrying only 10 passengers per km. So if there was only 1 operator and not 13 in tokyo, that figure will rise to 130 passengers per km nearly twice SMRT can we assume that?

(23-05-2012, 09:54 AM)shanrui_91 Wrote: http://ltaacademy.gov.sg/doc/J11Nov-p71C...nsport.pdf

anyone able to debunk the figures? indicators are always misleading in some way

It is a useful article on transportation, i wonder where can i find those info?

A quick look into the article, it tally with my accessment on SMRT performance.

SMRT had provided a reasonable service with a lower fare compare with the peer in the region, with similar operating size (by rail length)

The peers that i am looking at are "Toei - Tokyo" and "Taipei Metro".

SMRT score higher with "Average passenger-km per vehicle-km" mean SMRT perform above average on utilitization of the system. Good for a public listed company, and also good for LTA becuase good utilization of state resources for rail transport.

SMRT score lowest with "Average fare per passenger-km" mean it charge lower fare compare with the peers. Not good as a "bi-monopoly" company, but a trade-off for been granted as "bi-monopoly" and a thumb-up for LTA to control the fare

The overall ridership on SMRT per station is comparable to "Toei - Tokyo" although Toei-Tokyo with higher population (assumption). Probably Toei-Tokyo population has other choices beside rail transport.

IMO, The issue with SMRT is not its performance in effeciency and service quality. The issue is SMRT enjoyed the laurels of their success, and forget to ensure quality "emergency evacuation procedure" and better than average "maintenance policy".

One last point, SMRT forget that it serves Singapore Local Commuter, who are difference from Tokyo and Taipei commuters

---

(23-05-2012, 10:41 AM)sgd Wrote:

Quote:A small correction, actually 2 operators. SMRT and SBST.

Good life? IMO, SMRT is dealing with more demanding commuters (customers) compare with Tokyo.

They both the same thing lah under LTA. If you want to compare is still less competition.

Tokyo with 12 million population has 13 operators that's 1.2 for every 1 million population.

So our 5.1 million should be getting 5.1 x 1.2 = 6.12 operators that's 3 times less competition that they are facing.

3 times less competition is not good life?

According to the article SMRT carried 70 passengers per km 60 more than tokyo.

So implying that train operators in tokyo are carrying only 10 passengers per km. So if there was only 1 operator and not 13 in tokyo, that figure will rise to 130 passengers per km nearly twice SMRT can we assume that?

I am not quite sure on your calculation But anyway let's put mine up for consideration.

Comparing base on population is suitable if no better indicators. We have two (2) indicators to ensure us to compare apple to apple.

Annual ridership (million) per station x Number of Stations = annual raidership.

SMRT = 9 x 70 = 630 Mils
Taipei = 5.5 x 90 = 495 Mils
Toei-Tokyo = 8 x 100 = 800 Mils

As engineer, we always say that the number in the same order means comparable.

I had came across this poster of private bus service. I remembered it is been raised before. I posted here for those interested.

   

At the cost of S$3.7 per trip (previously is S$5, been reduced), you can go into city from suburban area with an express route, with fewer stops (7 stops as listed in the picture)

Another good reason to opt-out the expensive car ownership ?

Anyone attending the AGM today?

The chairman speech and CEO slide are in the SGX website

http://info.sgx.com/webcorannc.nsf/Annou...endocument

SMRT's future operating cost is the concern, especially on staff expense, with more stringent maintenance policy and tighter regulatory control

Key messages are

"The Board is mindful of the need to provide shareholders with a reasonable return. The Board considered a number of factors before deciding it was prudent to reduce our dividend payout per share...."

"However, we have maintained a payout ratio similar to that in FY2011...."

Full detail please refer to SGX web site link

This stock's dividend yield definitely will be reduced down the years unless we pay for the anticipating coming increase in SMRT's fare. But i am surprised the stock's price still "holds". But you won't "die" buying this share. My 2 cents

Who is more important to please shareholders? or Public who will later determine election outcomes?

If your answer is public then you are right because LTA has PM Lee breathing down it's neck and they going to breath down SMRT neck.

Then you have to guess will they please the public at shareholders expense or not?

How much SMRT shares are with "TOO_MUCH_SICK" and how much are with the "Public's SMRT shareholders"?
Another words, please don't forget SMRT shareholders are actually part of the PUBLIC too. So it's "Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea". Buy this stock and forget about everything. Prepare to take what PAPYs can give you then you will be "happy". If not invest in another stock lah. Now don't ask me which stock. If you don't know, me too. Sorry!

I heard from grapevine that SMRT is proposing to change the existing LOA to one similar with Circle Line. That will reduce its capital commitment.

Will catch-up with news later... Anyone heard similar news?

(12-07-2012, 09:36 PM)Temperament Wrote: This stock's dividend yield definitely will be reduced down the years unless we pay for the anticipating coming increase in SMRT's fare.

Management mentioned that the dividend policy of paying at least 60% of profit after tax will still remains. FY11 is about 80% paid as dividend

So have to see if this can still continue for many years